Over at The Conversation Andrew Glikson asks Fact check: has global warming paused? citing an old Skeptical Science favorite graph, and that’s the problem; it’s old data. He writes:
As some 90% of the global heat rise is trapped in the oceans (since 1950, more than 20×1022 joules), the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming. The heat content of the ocean has risen since about 2000 by about 4×1022 joules.
…
To summarise, claims that warming has paused over the last 16 years (1997-2012) take no account of ocean heating.
Hmmm, if “…ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming…” I wonder what he and the SkS team will have to say about this graph from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory (PMEL) using more up to date data from the ARGO buoy system?
Sure looks like a pause to me, especially after steep rises in OHC from 1997-2003. Note the highlighted period in yellow:
From PMEL at http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
The plot shows the 18-year trend in 0-700 m Ocean Heat Content Anomaly (OHCA) estimated from in situ data according to Lyman et al. 2010. The error bars include uncertainties from baseline climatology, mapping method, sampling, and XBT bias correction.
Historical data are from XBTs, CTDs, moorings, and other sources. Additional displays of the upper OHCA are available in the Plots section.
As Dr. Sheldon Cooper would say: “Bazinga!“
h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for the PMEL graph.
UPDATE: See the above graph converted to temperature anomaly in this post.
Bart says:
“1) The derived measurements from the ice ages are uncertain and unable to be verified. If the case were otherwise, then there would be no use for the stations monitoring CO2 in the modern era.”
False — they are known from ice cores, and known well — the uncertainties are quite small.
“2) The relationship is not guaranteed to be static in time – the affine parameters are subject to change.”
Sure, like if the laws of physics are chemistry suddenly underwent a complete transition between then and now? Maybe electrons were 10 times lighter then, or Plancks’ constant half what it is now?
This is what you always do when you ideas are shown to have barnside-sized holes — we can’t guarantee this, we don’t know that, this might have been different then, aliens from the planet Gzilt might have been piping heat into the deep ocean from orbiting spaceships. (You can’t prove it didn’t happen!)
Pretend science on a pretend planet.
Bart says:
“We only have reliable CO2 measurements going back to 1958, but clearly the plot shows dCO2/dt tracking the temperature in the timeframe 1958-1975.”
Phobos’ response: “Sorry, no.”
Sorry, yes. CO2 tracks temperature. Look at the chart. It is plain as day.
The wheels are coming off Phobos’ belief system. He has made a string of verifiably inaccurate statements like this.
Phobos says:
March 4, 2013 at 7:02 pm
“Over the same period, the trend in the 12-month change of atmospheric CO2 was 0.05 +/- 0.01 ppm/yr, a statistically significant increase.”
We’re not talking about the trend. We’re talking about the trend in the rate of change, the trend of the trend, if you like. You really don’t understand the argument at all, do you?
I gave you the link. Look at it. Your argument has zero merit.
Phobos says:
March 4, 2013 at 7:09 pm
“False — they are known from ice cores, and known well — the uncertainties are quite small.”
False. There are no means of independent verification. See comment above.
“Sure, like if the laws of physics are chemistry suddenly underwent a complete transition between then and now?”
No, nothing like that at all. More like, a plant which had been linearized about a current operating condition is now in a different physical state.
“This is what you always do when you ideas are shown to have barnside-sized holes …”
It may appear that way to the untutored. But, the use of linearized system representations has a long and well-established pedigree. The relationship holds in the modern era. More cannot be said with the information we have. But, more importantly, it doesn’t need to be. The relationship holds, and it contradicts your ideas about how the system works.
Phobos says:
March 4, 2013 at 7:48 am
MiCro says:
March 4, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Back in 78-79 I worked at a LCD display manufacturer, learned how they are made, and worked.
The end of 79 I went to work at Harris Semiconductors in their Failure analyst group. Shortly after I got there I was talking about my background, and mentioned the LCD experience, the guy I was talking to told me they had tried to replicate some failure analysis techniques with LC’s, but were unsuccessful. I went and talked to the group manager, he sent me off to see if I could get it to work. I did, it was pretty cool, you could sit and watch certain types of circuits work through a microscope. Early 81 after the 1981 IEEE Rel Physics proceeding were published, I was looking at articles on LC techniques, told my boss that we were doing as good of work, he told me to write a paper. I wrote “A New Liquid Crystal for Field-Effect Viewing of 5V Vcc CMOS Logic Families” with some assistance from my boss with editing, and the corporate chemist who did a chapter on how LC’s worked.
In early 82, after my paper was selected, I got a letter requesting a preliminary copy, which I provided. It seems the guy was starting a company to build large thin film transistor LC displays. I’m not sure how successful he or his company was (I don’t remember either name), but I’m writing this reply on a TFT-LCD display.
I’m not sure how many copies the IEEE has sold, but I know they’ve never sent me a check.
I’m about ready to hang this thread up. Phobos, despite his pretensions, doesn’t even understand basic calculus. He’s so far off base, his arguments aren’t even wrong. It is rather pointless to continue. I’ll peek back later just to see if he has anything new.
Phobos says:
March 4, 2013 at 6:52 pm
…
And your better way to do this is what?
You don’t have one. Computer models are the only known way to estimate future climate. They’re just numerical solutions to the underlying PDEs that describe the physics, so deterministic in that sense. They have their successes and their uncertainties, and scientists have spent an enormous amount of time on developing them and verifying them.
…
Everyone — everyone — knows models could be a lot better. And lots of people are working on that. But they’re the only game in town, and the answer is sufficiently important that any guidance is worthwhile. NOT KNOWING the future isn’t any better — just waiting to see what happens could spell real trouble, and by then it could be too late.
So I don’t see the point of your complaints.
——-
I’ve been listening to your arguments, and I’ve started to believe the problem we’ve got (the difference between our positions) is more philosophical than scientific. At the end of the day we agree on quite a bit of the science and the state of it; what’s fairly certain and where the unknowns are. Your position isn’t much different than mine, yet you reach radically different conclusions faced with the same facts.
Phobos, I wish I could think of a better example than the one I’m going to use, because it’s important to me that you know I’m not mocking you or your intelligence. I just can’t think of a better way to explain this. But imagine for a minute that you and I were born contemporaries in Ancient Mesopotamia 5000 years ago. Perhaps the corresponding challenge of our lives would have been the unpredictable flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Note that we are not unlettered savages; our math can approximate the area of a circle, we understand astronomy well enough to grasp solstices and predict eclipses, we have a rudimentary knowledge of medicine. Still, unbeknownst to us, predicting the flooding of the rivers is scientifically beyond us, and the flooding of the rivers spells real trouble. If you followed the advice you’re giving me now, you’d argue that the word of the priests is better than nothing, that they’re the only game in town, and if we don’t listen it could be too late. You’d be dead wrong.
I doubt you’ll agree with this analogy. Let me try a different approach. The so called ‘precautionary principle’ is a load of garbage, here’s why. While we can always frame the decisions we face as binary decisions, do X or not do X, burn fossil fuels or not burn fossil fuels, etc., the consequences are never that simple. Perhaps if we wait it’ll be too late? Perhaps if we act now we’ll screw everything up. The burning of fossil fuels is one heck of a huge boon to humankind. The energy it produces saves lives, improves lives, and makes possible many things that would otherwise be out of reach. The cost in human suffering, misery, and death to driving people off of using fossil fuels is not to be underestimated or taken lightly. And when have we as a species ever been able to predict and avoid unintended consequences? Perhaps the increase in atmospheric CO2 will prove not merely neutral, but critically important in increasing plant harvest yields and in improving plant utilization of scarce water resources; this could be a big factor in keeping the world fed. Who knows?
Aside from our certainty about the value of fossil fuels as a cheap energy source, everything I said above of course is purely speculative and unproven. Of course. The threat of C/AGW is similarly speculative and unproven. My point is merely that the benefits of the precautionary principle are an illusion; when we don’t know what’s going to happen, we don’t know what’s going to happen, good or bad, there’s no way to evaluate it.
Finally, let me try putting it this way. Taking any action, particularly one that holds a cost of life or death for massive numbers of people, is a horrific responsibility. It’s untenable, irresponsible, to do so without certainty. If you end up doing irreparable harm, there’s no grace in saying ‘well, I didn’t think it’d worked that way’. That’s not good enough. It’s perfectly OK to take no action when there’s no certainty to justify that action – again, as an engineer, it’s my responsibility to advise the decision makers when we lack certainty.
I’ve enjoyed this discussion, thanks so much for taking the time to talk with me.
Mark Bofill says:
March 4, 2013 at 7:41 pm
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere”>Primum non nocere.
Epic! JP
Bart says: “We’re not talking about the trend. We’re talking about the trend in the rate of change, the trend of the trend, if you like.”
My number is the trend of the trend: the rate of change of the 12-month change in CO2 levels.
The CO2-follows-temperature argument has many huge flaws, not least of which is that humans are emitting 30 Gt CO2/yr, about twice what is accumulating in the atmosphere. Where exactly do you think all that carbon is going?
You may know about measure theory and fibre bundles, but you are clearly lacking an intuitive feel for the physical sciences, and what ideas obviously make no sense and why. The CO2-is-following-temperature canard is in this last category.
@MiCro: That’s great if you’ve had career successes you’re proud of. I’m not saying you’re not a good person or not an expert in your field. I’m saying your idea about climate is wrong.
As you probably know, science and techie people tend to argue hard, But at the end of the seminar they usually go out and have a beer together without hard feelings.
MiCro says: “It is a worth while exercise, but they aren’t ready to be used for policy.”
Then what is?
It’s starting to look like climate models have reached a point where returns are diminishing. Not only are they giving the same results as the earlier generation of models (S = 3 C, +/- 50%), but incorporating more and more physics, chemistry and biology in them is not necessariily going to reduce the uncertainties. See
Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
Gerard H. Roe and Marcia B. Baker
Science 318, 629 (2007).
which lays out the mathematics of why this is so, and the essay “Call Off the Quest” by Allen and Frame in the same issue, pg 582.
Not only that, but a 4-dimensional model has (approximately) a grid size halving-time of 4D, where D is the doubling time from Moore’s Law (about 18-24 months). That’s *before* you add any new physics.
So models may not be getting much better, except over decades or if a paradigm shift like quantum computing becomes available. We may only know S to 50% — or, put another way (Matthews et al, Nature v459, 11 June 2009 p829), that warming is proportional to total emissions with a proportionality constant of 1.5 C/TtC, +/- about 1/3rd.
GIven all this, what to do? We will have to make some decisions in the face of significant uncertainties. Many people think we should error on the side of caution — that risking more than 2-3 C of warming is very dangerous. (After all, an ice age had a temperature difference of only about 8 C.) Others think (hope?) climate sensitivity is on the small side.
But there is a lot of fossil fuel to burn if we want to — a couple dozen times more than we’ve burned so far. How to decide if we should or not?
Phobos says:
March 5, 2013 at 12:02 pm
@MiCro: Again, what does “accurately” mean? How accurate are models supposed to be?
(Did you read Roe and Baker yet?)
Tell you what, you read my work, and I’ll read this. I got to pg 2 before I found the estimate for CS to be centered on ~3C, recent research has shown it’s likely under 2C.
Do you also know CS was added to make the Model generate increasing temps to match measurements? And that for years GCM’s failed even that.
But I’ll finish reading it, you read mine, the first page and the updated temps.
Phobos says:
March 5, 2013 at 8:14 am
It’s going into the oceans based on Henry’s law on the absorption of Co2 into cold water. Polar waters absorb Co2, transports it into the cold deep water by the ocean conveyor system. Melted arctic ice sheets exposes even more water, increasing uptake. Cold deep ocean waters will hold 3,000-4,000 times the entire carbon cycle of Co2 of 700-750 GT Co2.
Phobos says:
March 5, 2013 at 8:18 am
That’s what you keep saying, yet you fail, repeatedly to give a specific example.
All I’m doing is mining the same data used to show warming, looking at night time cooling. Doing it in a way that no one else seems to have done. So, explain how simple math on NCDC data isn’t showing what it does. If the data isn’t high enough quality it raises doubt on the trends extracted from it. In fact, if you look at the number of samples available, and how it’s used, their trend prior to about the 1950’s is junk, but that’s another topic.
I have an extensive practical background in simulators, I’ve read Hansen’s GCM papers, I understand what they’ve done, and it’s really no different than what I’ve done with analog simulators in the past. And what I’ve done I had to prove was correct to engineers who could and would go into a lab and actually measure a real circuit. My simulation experience is grounded in reality. I’ve built hundreds of models, I know modeling, I also know how it’s easy to code your model on how you think something works, and it not really be how it actually works, that’s modeler bias.
I also have downloaded the NCDC data set and examined the actual station measurements the trends are made from.
Now, you keep telling me I’m wrong, back it up. And not with a bunch of papers that don’t address what I’m actually doing, like the Harris paper.
D.B. Stealey says:
“Sorry, yes. CO2 tracks temperature. Look at the chart. It is plain as day.”
Would you please explain to me what is being plotted there — especially for CO2?
Phobos says:
March 5, 2013 at 8:36 am
At this point nothing is.
I see simulators having some level of fidelity, GCM’s will be ready when they can accurately model macro area climate response. Right now nothing is. The only reason temps are even close is that they spatially average them over the whole planet, in smaller areas, they can be off 20-30C. With that lack of fidelity, they have no predictive value.
It’s the same sort of thing with extracting a trend from surface measurements, when you look at historical data, and how they linearize non-linear data spatially, and how bad siting is, that data is crap. So we have crap data being compared to crap simulator results, with morons betting Trillions of dollars and millions of lives on it. It’s shear stupidity driven by activists.
For now, we should be building nuclear power stations as fast as we can, and investing in fusion, as well as building a spacefaring civilization. All of these things will relieve the need to burn fossil fuels, and make us better stewards for our planet, without putting a stake in the heart of a 21st century society.
There are lots of people working on solar, and wind, it will get better, and there are places it is probably a good solution. We should keep an eye on the planet, work to solve the cloud problem in GCM’s, moores law isn’t done yet, faster computers will become available for less money.
Basically don’t force up the price of oil, and keep society moving forward until we know more.
I grew up in the 60’s, I heard all of the horror stories about pollution, but we did act enough to turn it around. We can be vigilante yet not revert to a 19th century human/animal powered world.
@MiCro: I have already expressed what is wrong with your work. This, for example, is a ridiculous supposition:
“The methodology I used was to take the daily maximum temperature, and subtracted the morning low temperature. That provides the energy into the planet, I then took the Max temp, and subtracted tomorrow mornings low temp, which gives me the energy lost overnight.”
Energy flows all over the place, and the planetary energy balance can’t be summarized with the simple variables you’ve selected.
Phobos says:
March 5, 2013 at 8:14 am
“My number is the trend of the trend: the rate of change of the 12-month change in CO2 levels.”
Well, then, your analysis is fatuous. I’ve given you the plot. The correlation is so stark you can see it immediately with your naked eye.
“The CO2-follows-temperature argument has many huge flaws, not least of which is that humans are emitting 30 Gt CO2/yr, about twice what is accumulating in the atmosphere. Where exactly do you think all that carbon is going?”
You haven’t shown a one. Just because something looks like a big number to you does not mean it is in relative terms. And, everything in the universe is relative. Without a reference against which to compare, measurements are meaningless. You are making an appeal to incredulity; you just cannot conceive that what looks large to you cannot have a large impact. This is a classic logical fallacy.
“You may know about measure theory and fibre bundles, but you are clearly lacking an intuitive feel for the physical sciences, and what ideas obviously make no sense and why.”
That is rich.
“The CO2-is-following-temperature canard is in this last category.”
All you have to do is look at the plot, and understand physical systems and mathematics well enough to comprehend what it compels.
I think we’re done. Your mind is closed. Watch and see what happens.
@Mark Bofill:
Of course fossil fuels have been a boon to human societies.
They are also warming the planet.
It’s not priests who say this, it’s science. Atmospheric CO2 causes warming, and 200 years of increasingly better science has found that warming to be 3 C +/- 50% for a doubling of CO2 (at current CO2 levels)
And what are we seeing? Warming!
Perhaps the increase in atmospheric CO2 will prove not merely neutral, but critically important in increasing plant harvest yields and in improving plant utilization of scarce water resources; this could be a big factor in keeping the world fed. Who knows?
People who study the issue know. They’re finding that CO2 fertilizes plants, but higher temperatures and precipitation changes stress them. There are many studies about this.
But people aren’t plants — there are many more factors to consider than what’s best for plants.
I haven’t said a word about the Precautionary Principle. I’ve said that causing an average global warming of 2-3 C (at least) is a big deal on this planet for our civilization. It’s about 1/3rd the change of an ice age, with opposite sign. It will be a whole new planet that presents enormous challenges to the status quo, and since we’re doing nothing at all about curtailing carbon pollution, it’s by no means sure the warming will stop at 2-3 C.
You seem to prefer to gamble and hope that the changes aren’t that bad, or (“who knows?”) hope they are good. That is not a responsible way to run one’s life, a family, a society, or a civilization. We are altering the planet and saying to the next several millenia: your problem, you figure it out, we only care about cheap gas.
MiCro says: “GCM’s will be ready when they can accurately model macro area climate response.”
What does “accurately” mean?
(You didn’t read Roe and Baker, did you?)
Phobos says:
March 5, 2013 at 9:35 am
And yet they use those same readings used to base AGW on.
I already agreed that the use of energy was a poor choice of words.
But the fact that day time temperature increases are matched by nightly temperature drop is a fact based on the same data used to create the proof of AGW. Either the data isn’t any good, or what I did is as valid as the warming trend it shows, and as I pointed out, I think what I did is more valid, because their monkeying with the data doesn’t change the Min-Max difference.
I feel it’s far more likely that measurements taken within about 24 hours will have much better correlation than those taken from large temporal and spatial station measurements.
The fact that temperature records show no loss of nightly cooling is a deal breaker for AGW. I guess you have to believe what I did is somehow wrong, but you haven’t provided any reason why it’s wrong.
It’s difficult when you’re presented facts that disrupt your world view.
Phobos commented
I did go look at the abstract, but it’s a statical approach to model validation, which isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Evaluation of the GISS GCM ModelE Though I’m not sure it will come up, I’ve had trouble the last two times I tried.
But let me quote the results.
ModelE is the latest GISS model. This fails the fidelity test.
Sea surface error
US Precipitation.
Phobos says:
“Would you please explain to me what is being plotted there — especially for CO2?”
What is being plotted is the cause and effect relationship between temperature and CO2: ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is no measurable evidence that changes in CO2 affect temperature. Thus, your AGW conjecture fails, based on empirical logic.
But I don’t suppose that logic enters into your belief system, which is obviously based on emotion. Religious belief is like that.
Phobos says:
March 5, 2013 at 9:49 am
…
———
Forget about the ‘priest vrs science’ distinction, that’s got nothing to do with the point I was trying to illustrate.
We agree about the ‘front end’ of the system, in that we agree that we are increasing atmospheric CO2 by burning fossil fuels. We agree regarding the radiative physics, that in and of itself and leaving all additional complications out we’d see about 1.2C upward shift of equilibrium for a doubling of CO2. We agree that there is more to the story than just the radiative physics, that there are feed backs that must be quantitatively understood. We agree that climate sensitivity is not tightly constrained, and our estimates of it rest largely on computer models. I think we agree that those models are inadequate, but that they represent our best effort.
So in what way can you honestly state that Atmospheric CO2 causes warming, and that climate sensitivity has been found to be 1.5-4.5C with a probable value of 3.0C? We agree that climate sensitivity depends on models that are inadequate, so what is your basis for stating this? That the models are the best we can do doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference Phobos, come on. Don’t chant at me about what the science of the past 200 years says. I’m not allowed that excuse; if I accept something as factually demonstrated it means I need to be able to walk somebody else through it and show them why it’s factually demonstrated. Depending on models that show no skill is as unreasonable as throwing the bones on the banks of the Tigris to predict flooding; it isn’t a valid argument. Explain this to me in terms I could use to explain it to somebody else who depends on the accuracy of my judgement.
If your argument about climate change depends on models which show no skill, your case rests on an invalid foundation, and you are speculating. It’s that simple. You can try to turn it around anyway you like, you can try to pretend that people are gambling by not accepting you speculation as fact. I already explained why this reasoning is invalid in my prior post. All that remains is that you want to massively change the status quo based on speculation. This is gambling Phobos, and it is irresponsible. Further, you do not appear to appreciate what ‘cheap gas’ means in terms of human life, which makes it all the more irresponsible. This dismissal does you no credit. You ought to give some thought to what the costs of electricity and transportation means at almost every level in peoples lives before you go crusading to disrupt that based on results from climate models that show no skill.
@MiCro: Again, what does “accurately” mean? How accurate are models supposed to be?
(Did you read Roe and Baker yet?)
@D.B. Stealey: Again, please explain what is being plotted in the graph you referenced, especially the CO2 part in red. What is the definition of that variable? It’s not the atmospheric CO2 level, so what is it?
@DB Stealey: I’d also like to know exactly what is on the green line. It doesn’t appear to be the HadCRUT3v annual mean, which for 2012 was 0.41 C:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3v-gl.dat
But that last point on the green line on your graph is something like 0.09…. 0.09 what? What variable is being plotted here?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.26/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
If you’re going to offer data, you need to be able to explain what it is.